Jump to content

User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Templates..

Can you shed some light upon why the templates at the end of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts are not transcluded/displayed properly.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 07:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Without looking at the page (or even following your link) I am going to suggest H:T#Template limits, more on that at WP:TLIMIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexandra Parade

Just noticed my mistake here. Sorry for that! Britmax (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Moorgate conversions

Thanks very much for the conversions on the Moorgate article. I wasn't sure how to sort them out, but I can now see how you've done it so can work it out for any imhave to do in the future. Thanks again. - Sigersson (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help with this technical issue

Hello again. Can you help me solve a particular issue at Template talk:Navboxes#Succession boxes? Thanks and warm regards.--Nevé–selbert 17:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Replied at Template talk:Navboxes#Succession boxes: incorrect border and left note at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS border instead of gutter rows on navboxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

T2 description and Twinkle

Hi, do you have any idea what happened with this: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 62#T2. Misrepresentation of policy being misused? In the discussion there were opinions that this wasn't the major cause for T2 misuse, but I don't remember anyone objecting to updating the T2 description with a better example. Can't this be done at least for Twinkle (which is the source of all the inappropriate T2 tagging I've seen so far)? – Uanfala 13:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata help

Can you sort out the interlanguage linking for the Grenfell Tower fire please? The de-Wiki article links to the redirect Grenfell Tower, not the actual article. I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to fix this myself. Have tried linking it, but get an error message and don't know about merging on Wikidata. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: There are two Wikidata entries:
It seems that they are different. One pair is for the building, the other for the conflagration. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It's got more complicated since I posted. There was an article on de-Wiki about the fire, which linked to the redirect Grenfell Tower when I posted the above. I tried to link that to the fire article on en-Wiki but got an error message which I couldn't work out how to fix. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes - Pintoch (talk · contribs), you know much more about Wikidata than me - do you think that this is set up correctly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed it. Objects in Wikidata refer to one entity. In this case, there are two objects because there are two entities: a 1) fire occurring at 2) a tower. The Wikidata items should not include redirects (else we end up in situations like this one). --Izno (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Minshull Vernon railway station article

You have reverted my edit on the previous and following stations in the box referred to, where I deleted the unnecessary words "railway station". I used the premise that was used on the Wikipedia Coppenhall railway article, where the words "railway station" do not appear in the same box section on that article. Are you now therefore going to add the words "railway station" in the box on that particular Wikipeda station article?

I must have seen many hundreds of Wikipedia station articles that do not carry the words "railway station" in the box referred to. I am most confused now.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: The words "railway station" are necessary for the link to go to the correct article, which is the article about the railway station. At Coppenhall railway station, the links are to Crewe and Minshull Vernon - I do not need to add the words "railway station", since they are already present; as they are in the links in many thousands (not just hundreds) of other railway station routeboxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for explaining the matter so well

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with mw-datatable

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Help with mw-datatable
 – Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple information on pages.

The info I put of 41312 working on the mainline is actual information as she did work on the mainline and the same towards the Castle's as it stated what was going on regarding the other castles which are being overhauled or restored. And with Bahamas the link to the website wasn't to be deleted, other loco pages have exactly the same thing so it must be left as it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: I have already explained on your talk page. You are using Wikipedia as a blog; you are failing to abide by the policy on verifiability. Also, in tending towards recentism, you are not abiding by the policy on neutrality. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A new one to check

Hello R. This article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections showed up in the PP category today. Based on the edit summary for the protection I can't tell which of the templates needs to be removed. Normally I would try one and then the other but, since the page is under sanctions, I thought it better to ask you. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 12:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The page was moved, and so the prot log is at the old name. Notice that the move protection expired 18:12, 13 June 2017 - so you need to remove the {{pp-move-dispute}} as it is no longer applicable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again R. Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates all sorts of dashboards are showing up in the cat. I have been through transclusions for a couple of them and can't locate the culprit. The number of pages is going up so I thought I would ask you to take a look. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It was this edit by Adem20 (talk · contribs), who should have noticed that the page is transcluded and so should have placed the template within the existing <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. There were two others unrelated to this that showed up a couple days ago. One is User:Kudpung/sandbox and the other is Template:NFL Year/sandbox. I think the second one is because it is a copy of the NFL Year template but I could be wrong. Your help is always most appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Kudpung/sandbox contains the line 
{{:good article}}
which transcludes the article good article, which is protected. Kudpung, you may not have intended to transclude the article, you might have intended to link the template, as in 
{{tl|good article}}
Shall we fix it, or would you prefer to do it yourself? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The second one was this edit five and a half years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikitable sortable

Sorry to bother again, Redrose64, but there's a problem concerning the sortable wikitable at List of British governments that I'm struggling to fix. The "Date" header, when clicked, completely messes up the table and the other headers don't really work at all. I've been trying to fix the issue but I'm not sure how. Thanks in advance.--Nevé–selbert 17:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: The rowspans didn't add up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Class 58 Names and Numbers

The Underway notice at the top of the wiki article for class 58 names and numbers is to be left on the page until the article is finished so DO NOT delete it, I am re-adding it now but it is to be left until the article is finished, I will remove it when the work is finished but not before as that way it shows that the article isn't completed as theres missing information as you can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: The text of an article is not the place to leave comments about the article's state of repair - that is one of the purposes of the article's talk page, which in this case is Talk:British Rail Class 58. If you really want a notice to appear in the article, we have {{in use}}. I have some more observations:
  • Ensure that all dates are in accordance with MOS:DATE, and in particular, do not use dates like 07.10.04 (in the row for 58015) which are highly ambiguous: to some people, this is 4 October 2007; to others, 10 July 2004; not everybody would read it as 7 October 2004, which (judging by other dates that you have added) is what is intended.
  • Be aware of MOS:CONTRAST when you use coloured backgrounds.
  • Make sure that all content that you add is verifiable, and is not the result of original research.
Also, please WP:SIGN your posts on discussion pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Identitarian movement

I'm not quite sure what you meant in this edit summary in this diff report. I know I started this, but how does me signing off on it help?  — Myk Streja (who?) 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Myk Streja: See WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief and then take a look at how it shows at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. Legobot copies from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive) - any !votes in between those points mean that the statement is neither neutral nor brief. Instructions on voting may also mean that it isn't brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. Thanks.  — Myk Streja (who?) 23:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Greater Anglia toc in sucession box

Thanks for reverting my dab of Greater Anglia to Greater Anglia (train operating company) in various succession boxes. If it causes breakage it may be something about the code of the box (beyond my understanding) as it appears on lists of links needing disambiguation & someone else might come along & do the same thing.— Rod talk 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: the correct dabfix was this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Whitlingham railway station change

Hi Redrose, not sure I understand the reasoning here, passenger trains travel on the line between Whitlingham and Trowse, so surely the line is open to passengers. Only the station is closed, the line is open, or am I missing something (quite possible!)...GrahamHardy (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Which trains? The latest edition of
  • Baker, Stuart K. (2015) [1977]. Rail Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland (14th ed.). Addlestone: Oxford Publishing Co. p. 31, section A1. ISBN 978-0-86093-669-5.
shows the Wensum Curve in red, which denotes freight-only, i.e. not open for passenger trains. Therefore, passenger trains that run through both Whitlingham and Trowse will need to reverse at Norwich (Thorpe). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you may be right! Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Birmingham Moor Street Railway station

Hello, No-where on this page does it mention the fact that a public meeting was called on site to discuss the plans of the London & Edinburgh Trust (supported by Birmingham City Councii to knock it down and the subsequent formation of the Moor Street Station Historical Society when I as chairman succeeded in obtaining a Grade II Listed status to prevent it. This group cleaned, tidied & repaired the station - all of which is well documented in the pages of the Birmingham Post & Mail. I also have reams of documentary evidence & photos. Chiltern Railway will be celebrating 30yrs of its Listing next July. Sincerely Bernard Juby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anketil (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anketil: Why are you bringing this up here, instead of at the article's talk page (Talk:Birmingham Moor Street railway station)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New one 6 July 2017

Hello R. Green Day showed up in the category. I tried a null edit but it did not work. I hope that you are having a pleasant summer. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It was because of the {{pp-move-indef}}. Basically, BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) downgraded the move protection from indef sysop to 1 year of 30/500, but probably should not have done that, so I have restored it to its previous level and duration. See prot log. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was a mistake while I was applying ECP. I didn't notice that the move protection was sysop. Thanks for correcting. ~ Rob13Talk 14:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks R. I notice that the article is still in the category. Does the template need changing? There are so many details with some of the protections that I am sure they are tricky to deal with. That is why I always appreciate your expertise and help. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WP:NULLEDIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Infocom techno solution ? why deleted page

Can any one suggest me why this page is deleted ??

i want perfect reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashikinfo (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nashikinfo: I have no idea what you are talking about. Your post here was your very first Wikipedia edit; none of your edits has ever been deleted. When you reply here, make sure that you include a link to the page in question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Art on the Underground revisions

With respect, I spent time editing the Art on the Underground page ensuring it was up to date and accurately represented the work that they do. I also corrected errors on the London Underground page (for example Art on the Underground was founded in 2000, not 1986.[1]) I also added references to artworks within stations (Piccadilly Circus, Charing Cross and TCR).

Art and Architecture is a major part of the Underground - and I would strongly disagree that references to these works should not be included within articles. Precedent of artwork in rapid transit articles is well established - for example 96th Street (Second Avenue Subway)

I would also disagree that I am "plugging (my) art exhibition" - I have no connection to Art on the Underground, London Underground, TFL or any other transportation body. I am merely a curious individual with an interest in the topic - and a desire to improve the wikipedia articles thereof.

I would be delighted to work with you on improvements to these articles.

Yours truly, 86.13.122.76 (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We have recently had a number of edits by the exhibition organisers, and by the creators of those artworks, who are clearly trying to promote themselves in breach of WP:COI. If you feel that the artworks should be mentioned, the best thing to do is to raise a thread at the talk page for the relevant article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's perfectly understandable. Would you be averse to a correction on London Underground fixing the founding year, before I raise a thread at the talk page for the artworks themselves? I will also post on Piccadilly Circus and Art on the Underground talk pages proposing changes to these articles.

86.13.122.76 (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Line height

Sorry to bother you again Redrose, but do you know of a template that adds <div style="line-height: ">? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 09:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Where would you be using this, how would it be of benefit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to use such a template in an infobox like so (using traditional markup):
using <div style="line-height:1.2em">
Redrose64/unclassified 19
In office
9 October 1961 – 16 October 1964
Prime Minister
Preceded byPatricia Hornsby-Smith
Succeeded byNorman Pentland
Instead of this (without markup at all):
NOT using <div style="line-height:1.2em">
Redrose64/unclassified 19
In office
9 October 1961 – 16 October 1964
Prime Minister
Preceded byPatricia Hornsby-Smith
Succeeded byNorman Pentland
The height of the gap between "Serving with" and the names should be reduced, in the same way {{Longitem}} manages to do in most cases.--Nevé–selbert 17:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There's hardly any difference in my browser (Opera 36) - other browsers may vary. If there is a benefit to doing this, this seems to me as if amending Template:Infobox officeholder/office would be the best route, but only if it's agreed first at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

RR64 - do you know off-hand if users are required to have a TP for notices, communication, etc. or can they remain an IP doing stuff on WP (not all good but with good intentions) without a way to contact them? Atsme📞📧 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, found an answer that works. 😉 Atsme📞📧 20:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
We do not have a requirement that only logged-in users may communicate with other users, nor that users may only communicate with logged-in users. Therefore, user talk pages for IP addresses may be created and edited by anyone (subject to normal protection rules). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Hi RedRose, I wanted to again apologise for the accusation yesterday,
I know I apologised yesterday but that was half-arsed so I wanted to actually apologise this time,
I should've actually looked properly at the discussion(s) before accusing you, The comment was in bad faith and I want to state here and now that that comment was a complete error on my part and as I said I should've checked thoroughly first before making such a stupid comment so again I wanted to sincerely apologise for making that statement,
I know we've butted heads in the past but we only live once and life's too short for petty wars & arguements but I again apologise for the rather stupid comment,
Hope you have a great tomorrow and Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome :), Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 23:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Gallery

Hello again Redrose. If you can help out with this, it would be very much appreciated indeed. I having a hard time trying to separate a thumbnail and said template:

Example
Foo
Foo
  • Foo
    Foo
  • Foo
    Foo

I would like the gallery to appear below the thumbnail and not side-by-side. Do you know of a way to work round this? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 15:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Two ways, which are actually the same although implemented differently. (i) add {{clear}} before the {{gallery}}; (ii) inside the {{gallery}}, add |style=clear: both;. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Neither works for me but it doesn't matter. Have changed my mind over where to place the gallery.--Nevé–selbert 20:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Example
Foo
Foo
  • Foo
    Foo
  • Foo
    Foo
This works for me; it should work in all modern (post-1996) browsers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Highland Main Line

Follow-up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Druimuachdar Summit --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm tired and off to bed, but AFAIK the IP is only a few hours outside of violating 3RR and called me "a Nigel" (is that a reference to Mr Farage?) so I would say any uninvolved admin is fair game to block. Hopefully though, the latest edit is enough to get consensus and prevent that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford 53

I note you haven't created a page for the next Oxford meetup yet. Is one happening in August? Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry,  Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

GWR First Class

You say that you have never seen leather seating on a 166, or at seat service.

Here is why you are wrong.

First Class seating on a GWR 166: https://www.flickr.com/photos/55223176@N03/28594827641/in/photolist-KyPY2F-WvUGyv-KyPYBP-VVC8aY-VVC9jm-VeEve7-JKcidA-TAg1Rn-yadmoe-z76gSM

At Seat Service: https://www.gwr.com/plan-journey/train-times look at timetable E10. Operated by a Class 166.

If you want to edit stuff, I don't mind that, but removing stuff because "you've never heard of it" doesn't mean its not true.

Thank you.91.125.63.38 (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Doesn't really look like leather  :) more like good old English vinyl... — fortunavelut luna 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean this edit, or this one?
In the first case, I said "please find me *one* train - any one - that does not have standard class. If you can, then this may be qiualified; if not, the text is redundant". I have never yet come across a train that had no standard class (or second class, as it was formerly known), other than boat trains, excursions and other specials. So it is simply not necessary to state that standard class is provided on "local services across the West, Bristol and London as well as its long distance HST services". The implication is that there is no standard class on South Wales services, which is easily disprovable. Why not simply state that it's on all services?
In the second case, I said "I've never seen either leather seats or at-seat service on a 166". I travel in Class 166 trains quite frequently - those seats are not leather (tables I will grant you, except that some seem to be mysteriously missing). Nor is there a "customer host" (unless you count the ticket collector) providing "at seat service" (unless that means a ticket inspection). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
It clearly says in the GWR timetable that an at seat service is provided on Gatwick airport services. 91.125.63.38 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Class 166 is used on other routes besides the Gatwick airport services. Paddingon - Oxford (calling at Reading only) for example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: Editors abusing the system

I was directly quoting the page for Sarah Wiedenheft which was put for draft:

editor

This user in particular, and I'm sure there are others, has attempted (and succeeded) this with many different actors on numerous occasions (not excluding the one above.) I've gotten several people complaining about it. Most of the actors put up for discussion have proper sourcing. And if they don't, it's one thing to remove a credit because of that. But to put an actors' page up for draft/deletion due to one's opinion of fame/notability? I don't agree with that. Swiedenx3 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Swiedenx3: I am not a "go to" for disputes between two people who I don't recall encountering previously, nor for disputes about a page which I have never touched nor have any interest in. Your comment begins "I was directly quoting" which implies that you are continuing a discussion that was started elsewhere, so really you should have put your comment on that discussion, not here, in order to prevent fragmentation (see WP:MULTI).
The attached image seems to concern a deletion discussion at WP:AFD, probably WP:Articles for deletion/Sarah Wiedenheft, but that is now closed, so you have three avenues: (i) start a thread at the talk page for the draft, Draft talk:Sarah Wiedenheft; (ii) the talk page for the closing admin, User talk:Ks0stm; (iii) you could follow the WP:DRV process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I can understand that however you asked about it in a different discussion, I'm new to this platform it's wacky and replying is awkward, I honestly am still unsure if I understand it so I apologize.
I actually just now figured it out thanks to your reply though. Thank you for the information regardless.
Swiedenx3 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A question for my talk page watchers

First consider this pair of edits, which comprise one post. Now, read this post (the whole post, not the altered words) carefully, and consider it in relation to the first. Can anybody explain the logic here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday I think, the only rational that comes to mind is WP:BATTLEGROUND. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert Clarification

Moved to Help talk:Section § Revert Clarification
 – Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Category discussion

Wanted to thank you, a bit belatedly, for bringing this discussion to my attention!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  21:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you reverted my edit on the GTR page. I was just changing the infobox from "company" to "rail company". The other changes were side effects of using the visual editor. Do you agree with the change I was trying to make? Thanks JaJaWa (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change in infobox type, what I saw was it all mashed up into the start of the source text, all on the same line as (and preceding, contrary to MOS:LEAD and WP:HNP) the hatnote. I stay well away from VE: it causes too many problems. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Royal family

Hi Redrose. Would you mind lending a hand in fixing the whitespace issue at Royal family#Current royal families? I have tried using {{stack}} but to no avail.--Nevé–selbert 18:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: At present, it's forced below the bottom edge of this image because the {{col-begin}} template internally uses the CSS declaration width:100%;. The template doesn't provide the means to suppress that, but it may be overridden - one thing that works in some browsers (like Opera) is to add either |width=auto or |width=inherit to the template (for the differences between these, see CSS 2.1 Specification section 10.2 Content width: the 'width' property); this will bring the columnnar lists directly below the section heading but might also crush it sideways.
I generally avoid {{col-begin}}/{{col-break}}/{{col-end}} because the need to set artificial divisions between columns (i.e. the {{col-break}} template) can cause accessibility issues. You could alter the article to use {{div col}}/{{div col end}}, but the top edge of the columnar lists would be no higher than the top edge of the aforementioned image. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Showing me how it's done

Thanks for covering for me on the breakdancing RfC. I've never renewed an RfC before and I appreciate your taking the time to clean up my mess! Ibadibam (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: It's because when preparing pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture, Legobot (talk · contribs) copies everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive), with this result, which since my edit has been improved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Mr Alvini

Please block Mr Alvini (talk · contribs). He is vandalizing nonstop. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Have they been reported at WP:AIV? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes they have, and nothing is being done. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Why should I not block Instantmatter49 (talk · contribs) instead? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Because Instantmatter49 (talk · contribs) is not vandalizing. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of opinion. Both seem to be in breach of WP:3RR many times over, maybe I'll block them both. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference to your recent guidance on Wikipedia template print-outs and matters subsequent to it.

I do not know how long it will take Wikipedia to correct the recent print-outs that show a full white line across the template between every single station, which was the reason why I first raised this matter, as it is of very recent in time. I thought that I would try to print out the Template : Disused Exeter to Plymouth Line stations RDT today, but the same "dotted line" appearance on the actual railway line is still there as before.

I am rather confused as one person told me to address the matter to Village Pump (Technical) then I was notified that was not correct and to use a different one. From what I can see, someone has kindly brought this matter to the correct part of Wikipedia technical in order that matters are corrected. Have you any idea how long it will be before matters are back to normal.

I did make a formal apology on my talk page entry on the matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Village Pump (Technical) thread being Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Problem suddenly found when printing out RDT line templates; it has a link to MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Protected edit request on 8 August 2017 and if my suspicion is correct, that is where a note will be left when the fix is made. At present, they seem to be discussing why an !important annotation was used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a Category:Wikipedia stub templates by topic

Hi Redrose64. I have just proposed a new category for organizing stub templates, what do you say? Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

REM rail box

Hi,

The Rambling Man deleted the whole convo on his talk page, so I thought we could continue here. Just wanted to know how you planned to build and implement the rail box for the REM? Thanks! Mtlfiredude (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that they did, along with an indiscriminate bunch of other threads. I suspect that the recent behaviour of some people on that page may have had something to do with it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, he "cleaned up the trash" it seems... So about the rail box, if you manage to build the template, I can then implement it for each REM station. Sounds good? Mtlfiredude (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Date sequence

I'm puzzled by your edit comment. Are you suggesting that the date sequence in citations should be different from that in the article text, or that there is some guidance endorsing such difference? Clearly we want consistency between citations, and there are gnomes using bot or AWB assists to achieve that. All that {{use mdy dates}} and {{use dmy dates}} do is avoid bunfights over such trivia by guiding these gnomes to the established consensus order. Do we perhaps need a way to indicate one order for the body and another for the citations? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The section is about citation styles, the subsection is about what is considered helpful when dealing with existing citations. Adding {{use dmy dates}} and similar are nothing to do with improving citations, they concern the overall style of the article as a whole. It has previously been established (see MOS:DATEUNIFY) that the date format in refs may be different from that in the article as a whole; I am not saying that it must be different and I fail to see how my edit summary can be taken that way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I get that, but do we not then need an equivalent, something like {{use mdy dates|cites}}, to unify the citation publication date format when they differ from the body text date formats? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I just raised this for comment. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

British Somaliland

There is currently a dispute on which are the successor states to the former entity. Because you have edited country templates I decided to contact you.92.13.137.81 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Which country templates? Please state which ones; I don't recall ever editing anything to do with British Somaliland. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You edited this. I figured you know more than me about acceptable usage of parameters on that template. 92.13.137.81 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
All I ever did to that template was remove a declaration from a style= attribute that had been causing accessibility issues. It does not make me an expert in that template, even less an expert on British Somaliland. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you fix something?

Hello, Redrose64 – I just left a long comment at Talk:Waldensians#Sentence needs clarifying, and right after I saved it, I saw that the font of my comment was small. I looked at the previous section and saw a comment added but not signed. It looked like the poster deleted part of the date-time stamp of the comment before his/hers, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. Can you fix this? Thanks in advance,  – Corinne (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit will have fixed it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

London Victoria station

Re the Rose reference, would it help to mark is as |page=not numbered or similar? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a single sheet of B1 paper, printed on one side. I don't want to imply that there is more than one page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Sir Terence English

I would appreciate your comments on this article, also the History of Medicine Society page. --Whispyhistory (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.


I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!


Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditCrunch: I know you did; that is why I made this edit and this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh I did not see that.Thanks! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Reminder

Hey,

Are you still able to help for the REM rail box? I haven't heard back from you. Thanks Mtlfiredude (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I do know of some sources, one for the LMS Fowler Class 3F, although it's a really messed up source [2]. Also there are some sources for the top speed of the LB&SCR E2 class although they are debatable, since some of them say that their maximum speed is 30-40 mph, while others say that their maximum speed is 40-50 mph. So it's basically debating between three possible top speeds for the locomotive. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Messed-up sources cannot be considered reliable sources. We need to satisfy the policy on verifiability.
The thing is though, stating a maximum speed for a steam loco isn't really valid. Diesel and electric locomotives (and multiple units) have a sign in the cab "Max speed 95 mph" or similar, this is the speed above which it would be unsafe for the loco to run; if we can source that, we can use it. However, for a steam loco, there is no such sign, and the maximum safe speed is usually greater than the maximum capable speed. The maximum capable speed is affected by many factors like quality of coal, physical state of the fireman, time in service (steam locos deteriorate during the day, hence the need for daily shed attention) and several other factors. Stating a "maximum" speed for a steam loco is misleading; it's like with the LNER Class A4 - we know that Mallard did top 125 mph on one occasion, this does not mean that it would always have been capable of doing that. So is 125 mph the maximum speed for the A4 class? No. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Rowspan problem

Hi Redrose. Would you mind helping me out with a particular problem concerning table formatting? I am trying to span two cells containing dates so that they can contain two cells adjacent to it like so:

Stanley Baldwin 7 June
1935		 28 May
1937
  • First Lord of the Treasury
  • Leader of the House of Commons
 Conservative 3rd National George V [1]
Edward VIII
1935 George VI

Here the date cells (highlighted red) contain both George V and Edward VIII on the far right (highlighted yellow). But when I use the immediate above and below cells, it looks like this:

Name Term of office Other ministerial offices held Party Ministry Sovereign Ref
Ramsay MacDonald 5 June
1929		 24 August
1931
  • First Lord of the Treasury
  • Leader of the House of Commons
 Labour MacDonald II George V [1]
1929
24 August
1931		 28 October
1931		 National Labour 1st National
28 October
1931		 7 June
1935		 2nd National
1931
Stanley Baldwin 7 June
1935		 28 May
1937
  • First Lord of the Treasury
  • Leader of the House of Commons
 Conservative 3rd National [1]
Edward VIII
1935 George VI
Neville Chamberlain 28 May
1937		 3 September
1939
  • First Lord of the Treasury
  • Leader of the House of Commons
 Conservative 4th National [1]
3 September
1939		 10 May
1940		 Chamberlain War

Here the date cells (highlighted lime) are still rowspan-ed, yet the George V cell (highlighted aqua) does not correspond in the same way, with Edward VIII filling the entire space. I have been trying to solve this problem for a while now but every time I end up seriously disarranging the table. I am not sure what else I can do.--Nevé–selbert 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a browser issue; it displays fine in Opera 36. But at Template:Rail line three to two (this version) I did it by making sure that one column (the second one) had no rowspans, and hiding the last five of the six top borders, also the first five of the six bottom borders in that column. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm an intermediate at best when it comes to table formatting. Could you try that technique out on the table above? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 13:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Redrose64, but would you mind lending a hand? I need some help with this.--Nevé–selbert 13:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle three

Hello R. A few items have shown up in our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I cannot edit the template redirects and I'm not sure why Trump's talk page is in the cat. Thanks ahead of time for checking on these. MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Why can't you edit Template:DELETE? It's not protected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Of the others, the necessary edits were these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
D'oh. After noting that first one was fully protected I just assumed the second one was as well. Thanks for the fixes. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Artúr Görgei

Hello, Redrose64 – I'm in the middle of copy-editing Artúr Görgei (but am actually putting writing by a non-native speaker of English into English), but am taking a break now for a couple of hours. I don't know much about tables, but it seems to me that the cells in the table about two-thirds of the way through the article are too tall. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary space below the text in the cells. If you agree, is there any way you could reduce the height of the cells?  – Corinne (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: This is one of those things which will vary according to many factors, such as screen width, browser type, fonts available and their sizes. But the main factor will be the table content itself: each row will be as tall as the tallest cell in that row, so if one of the cells in a row contains significantly more information than the others, that one will dictate the height and so the others will have unavoidable blank space. The chief culprit seems to be the "Notes" column, which in some cases seems rather verbose. The last row is particularly bad in that regard.
Something which you have not picked up on is the misuse of <ins>...</ins> tags. These have a semantic meaning: the ins element "represents an addition to the document", and that is not how it is being used here - it seems to be used purely stylistically, perhaps to underline text, for which other methods are much more appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64. After I left this comment and finished copy-editing the article, I realized that it was probably the copious notes in the last column that was causing the cell heights to be so tall. Either the notes need to be shortened or the column width for that column needs to be made wider. I've left comments at User talk:Norden1990#Artúr Görgei copy-edit and, to get the ideas of a military history editor on this and other issues , at User talk:AustralianRupert#Artúr Görgei. I really do appreciate your comments. Now, I'll leave it up to Norden1990, AustralianRupert, and the other editor who had expanded the article.  – Corinne (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry, Redrose64 – I left this comment before realizing you had already left a comment on AustralianRupert's talk page.)  – Corinne (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

South Gloucestershire#Transport - Railway stations

Thank you for your swift and decisive action. SMeeds (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for the numbered lists tutorial.

Whispering 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Birmingham and Bristol Railway

Could I ask for your advice about what to do in this article? Birmingham and Bristol Railway

In my view there was no such railway (except in the sense that there is and was a railway between Birmingham and Bristol). I thought that the article ought to be deleted and I put the necessary marker on the page, and explained my reasons briefly on the talk page. I also left a message on the talk page of the originator of the article.

That person has simply deleted the flag inviting comments about the deletion without any explanation.

It doesn't matter whether my view about the deletion is correct or not; my concern is only that the Wiki procedure had been disregarded. Of course I could just revert the other person's deletion, but that would just descend into an edit war, which I don't want to do.

With your greater experience of process issues than mine, I wondered if you could advise me what the way forward might be? Any guidance will be gratefully received. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It did exist, but only as a legal fiction for a brief period during the collapse of the railway bubble, as the holding company through which the lines between Bristol and Birmingham were subsumed into the Midland Railway. (Think an early-Victorian version of Directly Operated Railways, albeit over a much shorter timescale.) I very much doubt there's enough to say about it to sustain an entire article. ‑ Iridescent 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As I made clear, I was hoping for some advice on the process, irrespective of whether my opinion is right or wrong.
Fwiw I don't believe any Company of this name was ever formed, and in any case the generic name for any informal association was Bristol and Brum, not Brum and Bristol.
In addition there may or may not be enough in it (even if it existed, which I don't believe), but that isn't the issue. RedRose, can you help please? Afterbrunel (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent mentioned "the collapse of the railway bubble" for which the most relevant work is probably
in the Companies' Index of which we find the entry
Birmingham & Bristol80 76, 83, 97, 266
Note 80 says This was not an incorporated company (see page 83 and note 9).
Note 9 says This was not strictly an amalgamation since the companies remained independent except that they were worked as one under a common board of management (see page 76). There was no Birmingham & Bristol Company.
Page 76 says the two Companies did consult together, and arranged that their traffic should be worked under one management as from January 1st, 1845, pending an amalgamation also Mr John Ellis, Deputy Chairman of the Midland Railway ... offered the two Companies a perpetual least ... with an option to purchase, on behalf of his Company. This offer was accepted by the provisional Birmingham & Bristol directors and confirmed by his own Board, so that, as from May 7th, the Midland took possession, pending the introduction of a confirmatory Bill in Parliament. It ... was duly passed in 1846.
Page 83 is a table, one row of which is:
Effective From Company Form Date Sanctioned Company
Jan. 1845 Birmingham & Gloucester
Bristol & Gloucester		 Amalg. as 1846 Birmingham & Bristol9
So, this is something along the lines of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway 54 years later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

WP IDHT

G'day Redrose64

I'm afraid I believe this edit to be disruptive, unintentionally I hope.

You accuse me of violating wp:IDHT, a behavioural guideline. This is fair enough if you believe it to be true, but wt:Talk page guidelines is not the appropriate place to do it.

It's not the first time, but by far the worst, as you have repeated the allegation in the edit summary. Again, this is not the place for it.

If you wish to question my behaviour, there are channels for this. Please use them, and desist from these inappropriate posts. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This post is a case in point. You are taking my words and twisting them into something that I simply DID NOT SAY. I am FED UP of having to explain, over and over again, the same points. Others are also having to repeat themselves. All because you apparently fail to understand; take in; or simply read, the points that we are making. You are clearly provoking us, deliberately. You are being disruptive. End of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that post of mine was disruptive, but that is not the point.
The point is, your raising these behavioural issues on that talk page is itself disruptive whether or not they are justified. Please desist. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Desist yourself. STOP pretending that you don't see this as disruptive, or at the very least, open to misunderstanding. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
What exactly do you wish me to stop doing? I am pretending nothing.
As I have said previously, I did deliberately provide the edit you cite as an example of what is meant by interleaving and to ask whether anyone really had trouble with it, and it seems to have answered that question well. I have apologised if anyone was offended by it. In that context, I believe it was a legitimate and helpful edit. What was the alternative? Another editor has said An artificial example could prove anything. This is a concrete example, and has clarified the issues a great deal IMO. It's about as simple and harmless an example of interleaving as I can imagine, and yet it has confused screenreaders and irritated and confused people. That is important information.
So I'm certainly now aware that the edit is open to misunderstanding. And testing that was exactly the point in making it.
But again, that is not the issue here. Behavioural issues should not be raised on project talk pages, let alone in their edit summaries. That is the issue. Please desist. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

An issue with a template notice, maybe?

Hi RR - I think there may be an issue with a template notice at AHA Foundation and I don't know how to fix it. The merge discussion notice for the infobox reaches into the lead paragraph. Will you take a look at it when you have time? Thanks bunches...Atsme📞📧 16:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: It seems to, but actually it doesn't. The horizontal line below the word "merging" is the bottom edge of a floated box; if you imagine a vertical line beginning at the left-hand end of that horizontal line and going upwards, essentially the (non-existent) left border of the same floated box, this imaginary line doesn't cut through any text - the lead section text is all to its left. This is what happens when you have two right-aligned floated boxes that are different widths. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thx. When viewing it on my iPad using Safari, it appears as you described. On my 15" laptop using Firefox, it appears to the left of the infobox and imposes on the first line of the justified paragraph. Perhaps it's a browser/screen width issue. At least it's not a permanent issue, so not a biggy. Thanks again. Atsme📞📧 10:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:PREVIEW callouts

[3] Only used what the tool suggested (the edit was marked as "assisted")—would have been easier to have just fixed the template czar 02:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: I did fix the template. But tool or not, you are responsible for every edit that you make. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I meant this, and I generally am czar 21:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Inability to print out hard copies of Wikipedia RDT line templates in the normal print size.

We have just returned from a two week holiday in Cornwall and I wished to make hard copy prints of both the West Coastway Main Line RDT line template and the South Western Main Line RDT line template as both of these have had a closed station added to them. However, as was the case quite some time ago, I am unable to make such hard copy print out in the normal print size, but only in a much smaller font size of type

I understand that the last time this occurred, someone had done something to prevent this happening and after I highlighted the matter, matters were put right, so I beg your assistance in this matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Your intervention on 'State Atheism'

Hello - thanks for your intervention, but the RfC was about a simple WP:POLICY transgression, as the article does that (WP:NEOLOGISM) without even considering the content; inviting a content-debate will only distract from (and, predictably, drown) that, and one can easily conclude that that was the intended goal (of adding the categories/'extra' RfC).
If I have misunderstood something about RfC policy-ing (by your comment it would seem that you think that I intend to change Wikipedia policy itself), please let me know a better place/way of inviting attention/advice about articles that fall short of Wikipedia policy, as, according to recent experience and the page's history, any attempt to make the article conform to Wikipedia policy will most most likely be reverted (edit-warred) - that is the very reason I opened the RfC. Thank you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: You also added a 'society sports and culture' category that has nothing at all to do with even the article content (why not 'history'?) - now the RfC is about everything but its original topic. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: The |policy parameter - which puts the RfC into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines - is not for discussions where the application of policy to an article is in dispute, but for discussions about changing the policy itself. For disputes concerning article content, the following are available:
see also the table at WP:RFC#Categories. Clearly "Politics, government, and law" (which covers the state) and "Religion and philosophy" (which covers atheism) are directly relevant here; I included "Society, sports, and culture" because the way that people behave is also relevant: as shown at the top of our article on Society, a large social group sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. The fact that the rfc category covers sports as well had no bearing on my choice - I am not implying that it is a sports matter in any way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, adding the extra categories isn't harmful at all, as it brings more eyes to the question, but through focusing on the WP:POLICY angle, I wanted to a) avoid needlessly 'blasting' thousands of contributors (as mentioned in the RfC guidelines) and b) keep the discussion to that one point; having more input from everywhere makes it a 'content', not a policy, issue... the road to making a decision on the RfC point of contention (that remains) will be a much longer one, that's all.
I misunderstood that RfC 'policy' issues are about the policies themselves, and I'm sorry about that, and I was in no way implying any underlying motive in your action; I just didn't understand your addition (and not another). And since we're already there, I may as well add 'history' to the RfC as well, because that is what the article is rooted in (and its title's absence from historical consensus and reliable references). Thanks, and cheers.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
Nice to meet you Redrose64, look forward to doing it again. — fortunavelut luna 11:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Line #s in edit summaries

Hi, RR - I was wondering if maybe you know the purpose of the line numbers when reviewing a diff? It would certainly be helpful if line numbers showed up in the margin of the text so we could scroll down to that line # in the preview but I'm not seeing where that's possible. Do you know what purpose the line # serves or how we can find it in the text? Atsme📞📧 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that the line numbers do show when using certain editors, but not with the default wikitext editor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The image of Stephenson link valve gear is about to be deleted on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stephenson_link_valve_gear.jpg. It looks out of copyright to me and I think the request should be now removed. What do you think? Aspro (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert, nor am I an expert on French law. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

isle of wight line page

Thanks for cleaning up the changes I made to this page, I've never made an update before so have no real clue on the process. One thing how do you deal with the issue caused by needing a web-based citation if the only information is from dynamic web pages. I do not think the rail network publishes a book/pdf of all ticket prices any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.243.17 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using primary sources, particularly not one that is directly connected to the subject organisation. Instead, use an independent source (preferably one that is considered a reliable source), such as one of the magazines devoted to the rail industry - Modern Railways; Rail; The Railway Magazine; or Today's Railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I've no interest in the wider issues of the rail network and so don't know the sources you have detailed. I know the services in question and costs as I myself make use of the low cost season tickets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.243.17 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that personal knowledge does not satisfy the policy on verifiability and normally also goes against the policy on original research. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a fair policy, so I have no problem with it, it just means the page will have the citation flag for some time. Having the information there will at least allow those people with an interest/need to go and do their own research via the dynamic ticket websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.243.17 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit 23:34, 5th September on London Waterloo

Would you be kind enough to explain what was wrong with the list mark up that you changed in this edit. I ask, because the change you've made seems to alter what the list is supposed to actually present. I'm referring specifically to the change made to services via Twickenham on the Windsor lines.Sjoh123 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoh123: I altered this: 
* 12 tph ''via'' Barnes (Windsor Lines)
:* 2 tph to {{rws|Reading}} via {{rws|Ascot}}{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 2 : Reading and Ascot to London Waterloo}}
:* 2 tph to {{rws|Windsor & Eton Riverside}}{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 4 : Windsor and Feltham to London Waterloo}}
:* 4 tph to {{rws|Twickenham}}, of which
::* 2 tph via {{rws|Hounslow}} back to Waterloo{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 7 : Hounslow Loop to Waterloo}}, and
::* 2 tph via {{rws|Teddington}} back to Waterloo{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 1 : Kingston Loop and Shepperton to London Waterloo}} (the reverse of the loop detailed above in Local)
:* 4tph to {{rws|Hounslow}} via {{rws|Brentford}}, of which
::* 2 tph to {{rws|Weybridge}} via {{rws|Egham}}{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 16 : Weybridge (via Staines) to London Waterloo}}
::* 2 tph via {{rws|Twickenham}} back to Waterloo{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 7 : Hounslow Loop to Waterloo}} (The reverse of the loop detailed above)
to this: 
* 12 tph ''via'' Barnes (Windsor Lines)
** 2 tph to {{rws|Reading}} via {{rws|Ascot}}{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 2 : Reading and Ascot to London Waterloo}}
** 2 tph to {{rws|Windsor & Eton Riverside}}{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 4 : Windsor and Feltham to London Waterloo}}
** 4 tph to {{rws|Twickenham}}, of which
*** 2 tph via {{rws|Hounslow}} back to Waterloo{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 7 : Hounslow Loop to Waterloo}}, and
**** 2 tph via {{rws|Teddington}} back to Waterloo{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 1 : Kingston Loop and Shepperton to London Waterloo}} (the reverse of the loop detailed above in Local)
** 4tph to {{rws|Hounslow}} via {{rws|Brentford}}, of which
*** 2 tph to {{rws|Weybridge}} via {{rws|Egham}}{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 16 : Weybridge (via Staines) to London Waterloo}}
*** 2 tph via {{rws|Twickenham}} back to Waterloo{{sfn|SWR|loc=Table 7 : Hounslow Loop to Waterloo}} (The reverse of the loop detailed above)
Before my edit, there were two separate lists: one bulleted list with a single entry, followed by one association list, also with a single entry. Within the latter, there were four separate lists: one bulleted list with three entries; one association list with a single entry containing a two-entry bulleted list; one bulleted list with a single entry; and one association list with a single entry containing a two-entry bulleted list. After my edit, there are far fewer lists, there is one consistent structure, and it is far better for those who use screen reader software. When nesting lists, it is permissible to nest different types of list; but they must be nested from the outside inwards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Angel tube station

I'm confused by your comment for your edit of Angel Tube Station. You removed a reference (which was not inserted by me, so can't be my WP:NOR) stating that it doesn't mention Angel; but neither does that for Prague metro. (1) Should that have been removed as well? (2) Does this also mean that the article really shouldn't mention its ranking for escalator length at all unless a definitive reference gives that information? (3) Would the same apply to the information at Escalator? Bazza (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't look at pre-existing refs (which I took in good faith), only at the one that was added by 2A00:1028:96CD:37E2:F8F3:C580:6CE:7F37 (talk) in this edit. This ref does not mention Angel - nor is there any sort of ranked list that I can see - so I can only conclude that the IP user is deciding that since the one at Helsinki Airport is apparently longer than the one at Angel, it will necessarily push Angel down one place from fourth-longest to fifth. This is WP:SYNTH, which is a particular kind of WP:NOR. The rule is: do not draw your own conclusions, but describe the conclusions that others have already published. So what we need is a reliable source directly concerning Angel and stating that its escalators are fifth-longest; alternatively a reliable source which gives a ranked list of stations by escalator length, one of which must be Angel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've added a reference for Heathrow (T2 it seems, not T5) and removed the my-escalator's-bigger-than-yours unreferenced fact about Western Europe. Escalator seems to have the same problem, but it's not really a pet subject of mine, just edited in passing. Bazza (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IkbenFrank

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Communication problems with IkbenFrank. (I notice you've run into this editor too). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonconstructive edits by unregistered account

Hi there.

This user has been making nonconstructive edits to the Arriva Trains Wales and Northern fleetlist tables and it's getting tiresome undoing it all (twice today). I appreciate that they want to contribute but all they're doing is making the fleet tables on various TOC pages look untidy. Hope you can help - Coradia175 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that what they're trying to do is make the table narrower, in order to fit whatever screen they're using. However, they do not know how wide everybody else's screen is. The worst of it is that they shorten links with the result that the link is either broken, or ends up pointing to a dab page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
He was repeatedly linking to DVT, which redirects to deep vein thrombosis, instead of driving van trailer. He is also repeatedly violating MOS:DATERANGE, but any warning on his user talk page is immediately deleted and ignored. Abbreviations such as "MK3" for Mark 3 are not in accordance with common usage; "Mk3" might be acceptable. In many other respects his changes are contrary to the format which has been established by consensus. Various editors have reverted some of his changes, but he edit-wars them back in again. He has made no attempt to explain his changes either in edit summaries or on article talk pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
DVT is an example of "they shorten links with the result that the link is ... broken". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The person concerned uses a static IP address, so could be blocked; but if we do that, they'll get a new one. They've done that before, for instance 80.1.134.116 (talk) is an old one of theirs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Could we possibly protect the pages they are editing so only registered users can edit them? And I apologise for using the obsolete markers by the way - I'll keep that in mind for my future edits :-) - Coradia175 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
With their current IP address, they have edited all of the following:
I don't think that I am justified in semi-protecting all of those. The admins at WP:RFPP might consider protecting on a case by case basis. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess we can see how things go and go to WP:RFPP if it continues to be an issue - Coradia175 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Diffuse category

I'm afraid I don't understand this, I'm not offended, but puzzled even after looking at WP:DIFUSE, would it be that the category is so 'bloated' and ill-defined as to be valueless? If that is the case, having looked at Category:Fictional_English_people, I would agree. Half the UK plays, poems, films etc since the year dot feature "Fictional English people", and most are not there. Just puzzled, I don't categorise very often and tend to do more removing than adding myself. Pincrete (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC) (please ping if replying).

@Pincrete: You link an old version above, not an edit of mine. But I assume that you mean this edit; also, I linked WP:CATDIFFUSE, I did not give a redlink. Finally, I left Category:Fictional English people alone: the article was in that category before my edit, and still in that category afterward.
Anyway, my edit was a reversion of the previous edit: the person who added the article to Category:Fictional British people, that is 72.35.119.48 (talk), had made a lot of edits recently where they had added one or more categories to pages which were already in a subcategory of the one concerned. In this case, the article was already in Category:Fictional English people, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional British people; and my reversion merely removed the extra category. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I don't think I'm normally do daft! I hope not. Pincrete (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A treat

Hello R. Have you seen this yet? Some delightful drawings by Russell T and a wonderful message for all Dr Who fans. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Mind you, it's not saying much, as the ape men of the Indus Valley have a clearer understanding of coding than I  :) but thank you, anyway, for the help on my page. Lookin' good! — fortunavelut luna 17:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manchester and Milford Railway

Template:Manchester and Milford Railway has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Template: WikiProject Women's sport

Hi RedRose64, can you push the edits made to Template: WikiProject Women's sport/sandbox live or let me know what needs to be modified. I made the changes you previously noted. Thank you for your assistance. Hmlarson (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

meetups

The tip of the pale green spire of Nuffield College indicates the roof of The Four Candles, the normal venue for Oxford meetups

hi...when are next meet ups? Whispyhistory (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: You missed London 123 yesterday, next is Oxford 55 this coming Sunday; generally, you should find a notice at the top of your watchlist (unless you've dismissed it). But if you go to the page for any UK meetup, past or future, you should find a pink sidebar on the right that lists upcoming and recent, also a navbox at the bottom which groups by town/city. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thank you...no message has been coming up on my watchlist like before Whispyhistory (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry... should be there now. Another method is to add any one or more of these to your watchlist: Template:Meetup-UK; Template:UK Wikipedia meetups; Wikipedia:Meetup/UK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
amazing as usual @Redrose64:. see you in Oxford Whispyhistory (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Before meet up could you check St Clair Thomson. How to size signature. I have collected many more signatures to add once I know how to do it properly.ThxWhispyhistory (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Forget about using the full image syntax inside infoboxes. Just put the bare filename into the appropriate parameter, as in |signature=Signature ST Claire Thomson 1894, Royal Medical Chirurgical Society `obligation Book 1805.jpg --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Just seen the notice for the Oxford meetup this Sunday. I am due to arrive in Oxford by narrowboat on Saturday night & the two things just clicked so I may try to drop in. I don't know Oxford very well at all. but the public moorings seem to reasonably close.— Rod talk 18:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to say that Rodw's casual I am due to arrive in Oxford by narrowboat on Saturday night is pretty much the Coolest Thing Out. Love it. :) DBaK (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rodw: Will you be on the Oxford Canal? If so, its southern end (just north of Hythe Bridge, don't pass through Lock 46) is about 90 seconds walk from the meetup venue. Before the basin was filled in, and Nuffield College built on top, it was under ten seconds... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both. We will be travelling south on the Oxford. The aim is to moor in Oxford for a night before going onto the Thames, so hope to see you then.— Rod talk 05:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing Redrose64 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Slightlymad 04:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Slightlymad: Which birthday? Real-life, made first edit, or registered an account? But, it seems that I became an admin six years ago today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Adrian Vaughan

View east from the B4017 bridge at Steventon of the place where No. 6800 Arlington Grange was derailed
View west from the down main towards the B4017 bridge, and beyond that, Steventon station
View west, showing the accident location on the left

How reliable is Vaughan for dates of accidents etc? Signalman's Twilight pp100-05 refers. Can't find owt to back that one up. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't find my copy. What was the location, the circumstances? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
SPAD and derailment of freight at Foxhall Jn, Didcot, involving 6800 Arlington Grange, 21 September 1962. Express passenger stopped just short of obstruction. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) If you know what the local paper at the time was, they're usually a good bet; most of them are now archived online provided you have a UK library card, and anything that causes any kind of disruption almost always gets at least a brief mention in the local press complete with exact time and place. ‑ Iridescent 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That's what is troubling me. The only accident I can find at that location was five years later, involving a passenger train that O. S. Nock was travelling on. Not a mention in The Times or at the Railways Archive website. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The only accident involving 6800 Arlington Grange that I recall reading about was not at Foxhall Junction (53 miles 55 chains from Paddington), but more than 2+1⁄2 miles to the west (between mileposts 56+1⁄4 and 56+1⁄2) at approximately 51°37′17″N 1°18′55″W / 51.62135°N 1.3152°W / 51.62135; -1.3152 near Steventon. To the east of Steventon station is a bridge (56 miles 39 chains) that nowadays carries the B4017 road over the railway, but at that time carried the A34 road; this bridge is only wide enough for two rail tracks (see second photo). To the east of the bridge there are points (56 miles 32 chains), and from there towards Milton (which was itself the site of an accident in 1955 just west of milepost 55+1⁄4), four tracks in cutting. Of these four tracks, the ones to consider are the down goods loop (DGL), which is the southernmost (rightmost in the first photo, leftmost in the third); and the down main (DM), which is the second from the south (second from right in the first photo, centre in second and third photos). The exit from the DGL is protected by trap points; these are visible in the first photo, exactly half-way down, directly below the pair of cooling towers; and in the third photo, on the left-hand track just beyond the signal gantry.
As I recall, 6800 was hauling a down train (not a passenger train - may have been goods, parcels or empties) on the DGL, and there was a down passenger train (either express or ordinary, I don't recall) on the DM. Since the passenger train had priority, the exit points were set for the DM, and the DM signals were clear; accordingly, the DGL signals were at danger and the trap points were set to divert any runaway from reaching the main line. The driver of 6800 mistook the DM signals for his own, and carried on through the trap points and was derailed into the side of the cutting.
I have studied this location many times: for the last two years, the bus that takes me to work goes over Steventon bridge, and the trap points at the end of the DGL are clearly visible. I must get a higher-resolution photo before the ongoing electrification work reduces the visibility of the site. Masts are already up ... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot of what you've put ties in. I'll need to carefully digest that chapter before I edit any articles to add in the accident. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

references

@Redrose64: Hi... can you advise what to do to correct reference 5 on History of Medicine Society. There is a lot of red writing.Whispyhistory (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to award this

@Redrose64:, this is Navarre0107 (talk), I would like to thank you for fixing and greatly improving a template of my wikiproject, also, for your service, on behalf of my Wikipedia:WikiProject Navarre, Florida, I would like to award this service award:

Wikipedians of Navarre Service Award
Awarded by a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Navarre, Florida, due to this user's service to aiding the advancement of Navarre, Florida, and its corresponding Wikipedia pages. Navarre0107 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You're Welcome :) --Navarre0107 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Template transclusion limit exceeded on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset

Nice to meet you in Oxford last week. We were talking about the template transclusion limit being exceeded (or similar term) on Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset and I'm sorry I didn't have tome to understand what you were saying about lua (or similar). There is an old discussion at Talk:Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset#Content transclusion limit exceeded and I wondered if you had any more thoughts to add there about how to resolve the issue?— Rod talk 09:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to go as far as rewriting Template:English Heritage listed building row in Lua, there are two possible courses of action: either split down the article into even smaller areas; or consider removing one or two items of information from every row. Regarding the latter method, two that spring to mind are:
  1. Is it necessary to have both grid reference and coordinates?
  2. Is a separate reference necessary when the entry number links through to what should be a reliable source? By removing the |reference= parameter from every row, that will eliminate 250+ instances of {{cite web}}; the column itself may be hidden by altering all instances of |show_ref=yes to |show_ref=no in the {{EH listed building header}} and all the rows.
On the matter of grid refs, these seem somewhat overprecise - they have two letters and ten figures: this is one-metre precision. Note that reducing the precision to perhaps 10 metres (8 figures) will not affect the template limits at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Hi RedRose, Hope all is well,
Inregards to the RFC - If his name is on more than one news cite and even features on a news clip on his own YouTube video then how can it still be considered outing ?, I can kinda see the logic in the OUTING thing but at the same time he's still releasing name on both things here so I kinda don't ... makes a whole heap of sense!,
Anyway sorry I'm not great when it comes to this sort of thing and would rather get a better understanding first,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Newton dale Halt

Hi Redrose 64; regarding this diff [4] I was trying to say that the name was changed and is now listed on their websites as being different to the actual name of the station. It didn't come off very well and I appreciate that on balance, what I was saying was wrong and I thank you for being the guiding hand in these matters. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Challow

As you're probably aware, I've expanded the Challow station article. The Railways Archive website mentions an accident on 29 April 1872. The Times draws a blank. As it's your patch, maybe you can find some info in your local library. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested

Hello R. I hope that you are well. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/PH Games has shown up in the category. As it is fully protected I can't perform the necessaries to get it out. When you have a moment your help will be appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 13:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a WP:NULLEDIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 13:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

New one

Hello again. Yesterday this Talk:History of computing in Romania was added to the cat. I tried null edits there, at the article where the info originated and at the template page. I also waited for a time to see if it would clear out on its own. I will be interested to learn what the solution is. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's because {{Attribution history}} has a {{pp}} which was put there by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs), presumably under the impression that all pages bearing this template would necessarily be protected. Of course, Talk:History of computing in Romania has never been protected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I see the protection template in the editing field but I don't see a protection in the log for the template. Is that what is causing the problem? I also wonder if this hasn't shown up before because the template hadn't been used until a day ago. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with protection of {{Attribution history}}: the {{pp}} is inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> so the protection that relates to this is that of the page where the template is transcluded - in this case, Talk:History of computing in Romania. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I see R. Do you have any idea how to get that talk page out of the category? I always appreciate your taking the time to explain these things. Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the template need to have a <noinclude>...</noinclude> added in some fashion? I'm just throwing ideas out since - as you say the Talk:History of computing in Romania page has never been protected. Apologies if I am making things more confusing. MarnetteD|Talk 23:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude> has the opposite effect of <includeonly>...</includeonly> - if you put one inside the other, nothing is done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So is there anything that can be done to get that talk page out of the category? MarnetteD|Talk 12:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated

Dear Redrose64. I hope I have found an acceptable amendment wording by explaining the contractual chain Regards JW Jwoch (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jwoch: What does this have to do with article alerts? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Alerts question

There were a couple of occasions where women-related articles at AfD were not listed in the Alert section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I don't know why the BOT didn't pick them up, but the most recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy Ballard. I guess I could post it to the project TP but if there's a way to fix the issue, that may be a better route. I just happened across this one because I was reviewing AfD this evening. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Atsme📞📧 04:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: The alert section being Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts, which is updated based upon the entry at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list#W. This shows
which indicates that for the AFD to be selected for listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts, an article's talk page either needs to carry {{WIR}} (or one of its redirects), or be in Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages. Talk:Joy Ballard has neither of these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you! Atsme📞📧 12:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the screw-ups, and thank you for helping me to better understand how the process works. Atsme📞📧 02:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

re: your persistent removal of my rfc

citing an "essay" is NOT a valid rationale for this action.

if we are doing that, i refer you to the wheaton rule? :)

Lx 121 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: I did not remove your RFC - I removed the {{rfc}} template; there is a difference. Also, WP:RFC is not an "essay", it is agreed and established procedure for how to conduct a Request for Comment. I urge you once again to look carefully at Talk:Cultural appropriation#NNPOV and consider my points, in particular, why is "Unsorted" present five times? Have you not read either WP:RFC or the documentation for {{rfc}}? What on earth is the "wheaton rule"?
Finally: please consider WP:NPA and think very carefully about what you wrote here. Looking at User talk:Lx 121, I see that there have been concerns about your editing going back almost ten years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
1, "I did not remove your RFC - I removed the {{rfc}} template" - that has got to be right up there with "guns don't kill people, people kill people" in terms of its logic & reasoning. HOW EXACTLY do you see an "rfc" going forward, if you remove the rfc tag? how is an rfc supposed to occur after you do that? because, last time i checked, the tags were pretty darned important to getting the c's to your r.
2, as i said elsewhere, since the template does not include a list of the topic "codes" to choose from, & since i did not know them, & could not find such a list, by reasonable effort, i simply put the appropriate words in english; assuming, that some rfc-specialist editor acting in good faith would correct & categorise them as necessary. i cannot believe that every single other editor who seeks an rfc has had perfect knowledge of the correct codes, every time, so i would expect the rfc "working group" to be prepared for such contingencies. if you feel bothered by this lack, & since you are knowledgible about the subject, , why don't you add the "correct" letter combinations to make the codes to properly categorise it? instead of deleting the rfc x2.
3, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WRFC which you cited as 1/2 your rationale for deleting the rfc, most certainly is an "essay", & therefore not "wp"; & i do not see anything on the other linked oage, that justifies arbitrarily removing another editor's rfc tag? or rather i do not see any cases that would apply here? please clarify which item you are using to justify this action?
4, thus far, you have not had anything to say about the points actually raised in the rfc, so if you disagree with me, why don't you post your reasoning there? & since we are now "sniffing" each other's past records, yes, i have been editing wikipedia for over ten years, & i've got a pretty damned decent record of quality work; & i am quite sure that if i could be bothered to hunt through your contrib history & talkpage history, i could find plenty of people who have disagreed with you, also? :) if that is the basis for judging the validity of one another's arguements, then we are all in trouble. & this place has never really fixed the problem of declining editor numbers...
5, you can go look up the "wheaton rule" for yourself, or not, wp:idc. there used to be an article about it, but i stopped keeping track of stupid/pointless/"bad" deletions & merges; it was too depressing.
Lx 121 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The topic codes most definitely are listed in the template, at Template:Rfc#Definition of topic areas; the're also listed in the RFC guidance page, at WP:RFC#Categories. The prefix "WP:" is simply shorthand for "Wikipedia:" namespace, it applies to any page in that namespace, whatever its status. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Escher comment on Liverpool St station

Hi... I've reverted your revert as it appears to be based on a misunderstanding. I made no mention of Escher anywhere in my edit. Can I ask how he is related to your edit? --Rebroad (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rebroad: I didn't revert because of any mention of M. C. Escher; I reverted because it's not as as suitable as the established lead image. I mentioned Escher because your preferred image shows heavy distortion that is characteristic of Escher's work, in which impossible staircases feature prominently. You have now attempted six times to get this image into Liverpool Street station and have been reverted by various people, myself included:
So I am not the only one to revert you; by the third revert, you should have realised that you have little (or no) support for your preferred image. In fact, since the image was first uploaded on 24 October 2015, nobody has added your preferred image to the article apart from yourself, and you have never justified its inclusion by, for example, starting a discussion on the article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
A cookie for being awesome! SwaggerKing32 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64/unclassified_19&oldid=1143259301"